Simulating Attribute Aging in the PNFL

[Mitch-Dolphins]

Does EN actually decline in aging players or just SP-AC-AG-ST? Maybe this is a question we should answer in deciding whether EN is included in simulating aging.

Yes... EN should decline in old age. Players become more injury prone, have less stamina and recover slower as they age

[Donovon-Steelers]

*Point 1*
ST / AC / AG / EN are no brainers for aging. Disagree about ST. You're talking about men 29-35 years old vs 22-28; in fact, I think "old man" strength in athletes 29-35 are just as strong/stronger in most cases.

I asked ChatGPT:

What research shows:

1. Peak maximal strength

Max strength (1RM squat, deadlift, bench, isometric force) typically:
Peaks between ~25–33
Plateaus through early–mid 30s
Decline usually starts after ~35–40, not before.

Conclusion:

Athletes aged 29–35 are NOT weaker than those aged 22–28 in absolute strength.

*Point 2*
I don't like the "randomness" factor (0/1/2 in arbitrary attribute) for this proposal. Would rather have (for planning purposes):

Year 7: -1 SP
Year 8: -1 AC
Year 9: -1 AG
Year 10: -1 EN
& repeat

*Point 3*
However, in either this scenario or especially the original randomized one it seems like a nightmare to administer.
Why not simplify it and just make it -1 pt EN since that affects everything else? That would be a LOT easier to implement and guys would eventually play less and simply become obsolete.

Except for Kickers/Punters - those could be reduced by either ST & DI in instead of EN.

But regardless of methodology, Pittsburgh is in favor of this proposal compared to the complexity of the existing system.

[Dean-Atlanta]

This discussion seems to be a lot more productive. Maybe the end result of this could lead to Charlie and Rich distilling all our input into 2 models of simulating aging, and then they just put those 2 up for vote among us and majority wins.

[James-Eagles]

I want to point out we need to be careful assuming speed only applies to speed and not football speed, which includes football instincts, reading, route running, etc.

Here is a potential enhancement to the concept. I just checked the average tenure for NFL positions. Let's use HBs, which is 2.57. Now, let's round up and double it for the PNFL. So, at seven years, the first year over the threshold, we would use the initial formula, two attributes, but random numbers of 0 & 1 for years 7, 8 & 9. To start his 10th year, he would be subject to the full formula, or two attributes subject to 0, 1 & 2 potential reductions. Based on the randomness, some players will get hit, others will skate on key attributes.

The problem with using average tenure is this includes training camp, fringe rookies, and practice squad players that never really make team or play.

[Mitch-Dolphins]

*Point 1*
ST / AC / AG / EN are no brainers for aging. Disagree about ST. You're talking about men 29-35 years old vs 22-28; in fact, I think "old man" strength in athletes 29-35 are just as strong/stronger in most cases.

I asked ChatGPT:

What research shows:

1. Peak maximal strength

Max strength (1RM squat, deadlift, bench, isometric force) typically:
Peaks between ~25–33
Plateaus through early–mid 30s
Decline usually starts after ~35–40, not before.

Conclusion:

Athletes aged 29–35 are NOT weaker than those aged 22–28 in absolute strength.

*Point 2*
I don't like the "randomness" factor (0/1/2 in arbitrary attribute) for this proposal. Would rather have (for planning purposes):

Year 7: -1 SP
Year 8: -1 AC
Year 9: -1 AG
Year 10: -1 EN
& repeat

*Point 3*
However, in either this scenario or especially the original randomized one it seems like a nightmare to administer.
Why not simplify it and just make it -1 pt EN since that affects everything else? That would be a LOT easier to implement and guys would eventually play less and simply become obsolete.

Except for Kickers/Punters - those could be reduced by either ST & DI in instead of EN.

But regardless of methodology, Pittsburgh is in favor of this proposal compared to the complexity of the existing system.

1) I didn't think about it in that way, but Donovan has a point. ST might actually be the 1 physical attribute that we don't lower, except for QBs. Since QB arm strength is directly tied to ST, we have to account for QB arm strength declining in older age. Even Bret Favre lost some zip on his fast ball in later years. At the same time, you see CBs that get slower become safeties. Not because they lost strength, but their SP and AG declined. Of course, does that mean we can designated players to switch positions without penalty if their attributes fit into the range for another position (EX: S to CB)?

2) I really like the idea of simulating the aging of players. However, how do we do it without causing a lot of extra work and manual record keeping? Some of my concern comes from ignorance because I'm not sure how Rich "anti-ages" the players currently. Is there a utility that does that or is it a manual process? If a utility does it or it's done very quickly by coping and pasting from an old roster sheet, that's one thing. However, if Rich has to manually update all these players individually and then we reduce certain player's attributes after he anti-aged them, that's a lot of work.

3) If the anti-aging process is easy, then yes, I or someone can create a spreadsheet that can reduce the ratings by a whole number or a percentage for any combination of attributes we want. We plug the players and their current ratings into the spreadsheet and it spits out the new ratings to be imported into the game.

4) I recommend using a 1% decline per attribute per year once a player reaches the current age for needing a physical. Those ages are a good representation for when we begin seeing declines in most players.

5) Instead of having 2 random attributes, do a 1% drop each year in the physical attributes except ST and HA (possibly except QBs). Unless there is an easy way to keep up with all the randomness for all the players, using 1% across the board is easy. Again, not against having random attributes, but not sure of the ease of managing it.

6) Charlie, you mentioned the retirement process and physicals wouldn't change. I assume players will decline in attributes until we cut them or they don't pass a physical. Correct?

[James-Eagles]

What I would like to see is a few things
1. There is a random chance for them not to age but once it starts, no more chances; they will age every year after that.

2. The aging effect is set based on position and age

3. It should be slow at first and increase.

4. In theory, you should be able to do it all in a spreadsheet, open up all the rolls, and have all the editing done.

[Mitch-Dolphins]

For fun, I lowered the 5 QBs with 12+ years experience by 1% (1 pts) in SP, AC, AG, ST, and EN.

The results:

3 of the 5 were originally Top 5 QBs. Now, the highest rated QB would be #24.

This something we have to be mindful of when it comes to lowering ratings. Since the ratings spread is so tight between players, even a 1% (1 pt drop in most cases) in each or some categories will shoot the player quickly down the depth chart. That's cool, just keep that in mind which is why we have to continue to build more spread in player attributes in the draft.

[Mitch-Dolphins]

Even if I leave ST alone and just drop SP, AC, AG and EN, the highest rated QB would drop from #3 to #18.

[Charlie-49ers]

Since I’m seeing some positive reinforcement for the overall concept, I’m going to move forward with developing one or two formal proposals and float them on the Message Board. Several ideas already discussed are incorporated into my thinking—most notably the idea of starting slow and then accelerating over time (for example, my HB concept using random 0–1 in the early years, then expanding to 0, 1, and 2 in later years). Dropping ST also makes sense, which is why I’ve been looking for additional complementary ideas. Finally, to be clear, this won’t create extra work for Rich—I’ll build the formulas in Excel and provide the results directly. My idea, my workload.

[Mitch-Dolphins]

Since I’m seeing some positive reinforcement for the overall concept, I’m going to move forward with developing one or two formal proposals and float them on the Message Board. Several ideas already discussed are incorporated into my thinking—most notably the idea of starting slow and then accelerating over time (for example, my HB concept using random 0–1 in the early years, then expanding to 0, 1, and 2 in later years). Dropping ST also makes sense, which is why I’ve been looking for additional complementary ideas. Finally, to be clear, this won’t create extra work for Rich—I’ll build the formulas in Excel and provide the results directly. My idea, my workload.

sounds good